[rest-practices] Read-only fields in a representation type

[Itamar Heim]

> From: rest-practices-bounces at redhat.com [mailto:rest-practices-
> bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of David Lutterkort
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 18:21 PM
> To: Bill Burke
> Cc: rest-practices at redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [rest-practices] Read-only fields in a representation type
> 
> On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 09:24 -0400, Bill Burke wrote:
> > I think this blurb from one of the blogs describes what I mean
> perfectly:
> >
> > "And an IDL is simply a list of API signatures. It doesn't describe
> > expected message exchange patterns, required authentication methods,
> > message traffic limits, quality of service guarantees, or even pre
> and
> > post conditions for the various method calls. You usually find this
> > information in the documentation and/or in the actual business
> contract
> > one signed with the Web service provider. A WADL document for the
> REST
> > Web service will not change this fact."
> 
> Nicely put. I assume that implies that API docs should be in POE (plain
> old English) - I am all for that, since I really doubt that any formal
> API spec will ever be up-to-date with the code or get real use by
> clients.
[IH] why would we send a developer to read documentation and start trying
to access code, compared to WSDL, which the developer can point and click,
and get generated code that gives him something useful like intelisense?
What is so wrong with having metadata format for REST that will ease the
developer life?